The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

---

Metroid Prime[edit]

Self-nomination. I've been editing this article since February 2006 (before I even owned a GameCube!), organizing the information already there, adding references, creating sections such as development and reception, and doing every possible move to improve the article: Wikiproject Assessment, GA nomination (passed), and peer review. And now seems the article is good enough for trying the FA status. igordebraga ≠ 01:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  • The intro should focus more on critical and commercial reception, rather than the supposed 'ire of fans'. -  Done
  • In the peer review, you mention sales in Japan being low. Any chance of some info about that in the article? -  Done
  • The gameplay section needs to be more detailed. It doesn't adequately explain the differences and similarities between Metroid Prime and earlier Metroid games. Someone who has not played the Metroid games won't know that jumping is key to moving around the levels, or that each power-up unlocks a new area. Try to imagine how someone who doesn't play video games at all would read the article. - Done, although you can say what else is "missing"
  • The critical reaction section is not detailed enough. They liked the graphics... what was so good about them? -  Done but make your requests if needed.

--Nydas^(Talk) 07:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More needs to be said about why the critics liked it. For example, Eurogamer stated it preferred the crumbling, root-encrusted levels of Metroid Prime to the 'prefabricated gnome-ridden grottos in Halo'id=4515. Well done finding the Japan sales figures, although it would be even better if these could be backed up with sources explaining Japan's dislike of FPS's.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some expansion in Reception, but couldn't think of anything else related to Japan. igordebraga ≠ 23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section still isn't big enough. What the critics liked about the graphics, sound and gameplay should have at least a paragraph each.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more explanation, but I don't know how to add detail without coming to cruft. An idea could be analyzing many selected reviews, but the contents of them are so similar (I read at least 7 to write the Reception) that the current format is OK. igordebraga ≠ 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.
  • I think that these sentences should be rewritten, shortened or split into several sentences. Long sentences are more difficult to read, and thus are less "engaging" and "brilliant".
    • The protagonist Samus must travel through the world searching for power-ups that enable her to reach previously inaccessible areas—such as the Varia Suit, that takes away damage caused by heat—and twelve Chozo Artifacts that will open the path to the Phazon meteor impact crater; the Chozo had scattered and hidden these artifacts to prevent the way from being accidentally opened. -  Done
    • Finally, Samus infiltrates the Phazon Mines, a mining and research complex that is the center of the Space Pirates' Tallon IV operations, and obtains the Phazon Suit and the last of the Chozo Artifacts, allowing her to enter the Impact Crater, where the Chozo have sealed off Metroid Prime. -  Done
  • Also, please note that the current images are currently mostly illustrative (= their omission is not detrimental to the understanding of the article) in stead of explanatory (=their presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic). Consequently, it is not in accordance with Fair use criteria #3(a) (minimal use) and #8 (significance). Either these images are removed or new images, with a good caption, are used to replace them. Sijo Ripa 12:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? The first two explain gameplay aspects (I even expanded the caption on the first because of your complaint), and the third, well, can just need another caption. igordebraga ≠ 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first game picture is now explanatory as it explains the gameplay in a way which would be otherwise (=with only text) quite difficult to do. The other two game pictures however are still illustrative: there are not really necessary for the understanding of the article. Sijo Ripa 09:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanded caption on the second, removed the third. igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The lead alone suggests the prose needs work:

• Using "Nintendo" three times in the first sentence feels slightly clumsy (although hard to avoid, I admit); could you rephrase or possibly remove the one in front of Gamecube? Not much of a problem though.
• It is the first 3D Metroid game - surely should be "was" since it has a first-person sequel, no?
• It was also the first Metroid game to be released since Super Metroid, which was released nearly eight years earlier (this applies to North America only; in all other markets, it was released after Metroid Fusion). - seems pretty clumsy. "released" is used twice, "metroid" is used twice, "also" is probably redundant, parentheses go into excessive detail for lead.
• the three part - hyphenate.
• The title was later bundled with the GameCube in 2004. - doesn't fit into the paragraph, all the other sentences deal with the storyline. Also slightly unclear what it means: was it sold with every Gamecube, or bought as a special deal or what?
• Just skimming down to the bottom, the references include some full dates which should be wikilinked and a missing accessdate or two.

There's good, but needs some work. Trebor 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done everything asked. igordebraga ≠ 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Tommy Tallarico did some sound design for the game. It's not a big deal, but you could mention it in your small audio paragraph.[1] - hahnchen 18:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Followed suggestion and added. igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support needs more images. One in the plot section and one in the legacy section would do. User:Krator (t c) 11:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional images are not necessary to obtain FA status... Images are only necessary when they are indeed necessary to explain something. The three current images are sufficient in my opinion. Otherwise, a violation of the fair use criteria could occur. Sijo Ripa 14:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added an image to the Legacy section (since illustrating how MPPinball remakes the game is a nice addition), but couldn't think of anything to the Plot one. igordebraga ≠ 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added one to Development section (though comments are welcome if you want to change it) igordebraga ≠ 17:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The article has definitely been worked on when I last passed it for GA status, but I feel that it lacks the comprehensiveness and "brilliant" prose that FA criteria so desires. Some specific points:
  • For the reception part, although it's not required, some quotations from the reviewers about criticisms or innovations should be added. These kinds of quotations can really emphasize the issues brought up. For example, what did critics say about the "unusual control system"? What did they feel about "the lack of focus on the plot"? Additions like these can really help the "brilliance of the prose. --  Done with criticisms, since the favorable parts don't need more detail - based on the reaction secion of F-Zero GX
  • The plot section should also be cited a little, if possible. If there is dialogue in the video game, you can use it to cite the plot section. Halo: Combat Evolved presents a good example of this. -- the game has no dialogue, and the Scan logs provide backstory, not game events.
  • The sentence about the differences in plot with the Brazilian version could use some change. "then-distributor" should be replaced with a more formal wording, such as "former distributor." --  Done
  • If possible, you might want to talk more about the soundtrack to the video game. -- what else can be added, specially considering the cruft policy?

All in all, it's a good essentially A-class article, but it needs some touching up before it can reach FA. bibliomaniac15 23:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any other writing issues? igordebraga ≠ 12:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No changed to Yes Leranedo 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Will change to Yes, which I rarely give, if the following are fullfilled if possible.
• Content matters:
• On gameplay, edit it a bit more to increase focus on what's innovative, new and ground-breaking about the gameplay or interface design or whatever made it special and worth writing an article on rather then simply stating how the gameplay is. Delete things you think are of little importance and add in facts that you feel are more important.
• Add in sales figures in terms of revenue if possible.
  • Units sold aren't enough? And this is rarely revealed unless it's something like "$170 million in a day!". igordebraga ≠ 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it is not at all. But if it's not revealed or released then we can only settle for units sold. Leranedo 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But somehow I've found it, and included in Reception (don't know if it'll stay there, though). igordebraga ≠ 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What was the budget for the game development? Like how movies have budgets, how much did it take to developed and published the game?
  • Another info not revealed often, you know. And sometimes info gets conflicting... igordebraga ≠ 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's conflicting data, then just mention them so the reader can know. Same thing as above. If unable to locate, what can we do? Leranedo 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If possible, add in any new technologies that was used to make the game better than others.
• In terms of ranking and rating, don't just have what the publications rated it, also add what the users' rated it. Some publication have user ratings as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 14:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We typically don't include user ratings. They're very unscientific and not a representative sample. Pagrashtak 17:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And publication ratings are scientific and a representative sample? Of course not. If you want to, add users' rating to balance things out... somewhat. It provides a more complete picture for the readers. Leranedo 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Critic ratings aren't supposed to be scientific, they are the opinion of the reviewer. If you want to start making claims about how users would rate the games, then I would want it to be based on a representative sample, which I don't think you'll find. Pagrashtak 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Critic ratings aren't a representative sample. What? Then you're going to said "but critic ratings aren't supposed to be a representative sample."
        • "If you want to start making claims about how users would rate the games, then" What's this about?? Make it clear.
        • Add in user ratings from the review sites unless it's not available. Learnedo 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Plot sections usually have a warning that endings will be revealed. Add that.
  • They shouldn't. We expect the reader to know that the plot section will contain the plot. Pagrashtak 17:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article should definitely have spoiler warnings. This article on the main page will be the first many people have ever heard of Metroid Prime.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spoiler tags isn't a very supported policy anymore... igordebraga ≠ 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I usually go by what's standard (and I thought it was still standard), but since it's not a supported policy anymore, then I'll start assuming that readers are expected to know that the plot section will contain the ending. Leranedo 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Spoiler warnings have overwhelming support amongst Wikipedians, with the exception of the high admins, who want to turn our fiction articles into a series of interlinked fansites.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see pros and cons on both sides. Let's just end the debate here. Learnedo 09:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You may want to break long sections such as the section on Versions into 2 shorter ones.
  • I don't see any long sections—do you have a specific concern? This isn't actionable otherwise. Pagrashtak 17:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed wording. Was unclear. Leranedo 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, you want to break the one-paragraph "Versions" section into two? Pagrashtak 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, break it. That section's such a long essay. I'll attempt to; if you don't like, feel free to change it back. Learnedo 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• More images if possible are always a plus.
  • Not true—see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Pagrashtak 17:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean free images of course. Can't have copy-right infringements or the IP lawyers will be after you. Leranedo 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What free image do you have in mind exactly? Pagrashtak 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not the Metroid Prime fan, you are. You decide. Personally I don't care as long as there is more subject-matter related images, it'll be a nicer article. Of course on certain subjects, that doesn't always hold true. Whatever you want! Learnedo 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps a picture in the Plot section as there's a dearth of images there. I stand by what I stated: "More images if possible are always a plus." Learnedo 00:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added one to Development, but see if it's good enough. For plot, I tried to find cutscenes before the final two bosses (e.g. 57.jpg), but I don't know if it will only be "decorative" by copyright neurotics' guidelines. igordebraga ≠ 17:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Good chart in the article. Leranedo 14:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'll see if your other suggestions are possible (some are too specific - which means both hard to find and not known if satisfies Wikipedia:Notability or the cruft policy I mentioned twice already.) igordebraga ≠ 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to yes as I'm sure any lingering possibility for improvements will be accomplished. And I understand certain points are difficult to realize but if the main editors were serious about their topic, I'm certain they'll be resourceful and find some way to obtain the presumably secret information. Leranedo 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Not too badly written, but it would be good to get someone else to go through it for sprucing up. It was easy to find things like:

• Spot the wrong punctuation in this caption: "Samus facing a Flying Pirate; the enemy is surrounded by a crosshair, also shown are radar (top left), mini-map (top right), current beam (lower right), and current visor (lower left)." -  Done
• Read MOS on when and when not to insert a final period in captions: "Samus' Morph Ball form, changing the view to a third-person camera." -  Done
• Winding snake: "Throughout the game, Samus must find and collect many different items, ranging from weapons, to upgrades of her Power Suit, to items that grant additional abilities, such as the Morph Ball, allowing her to roll into narrow passages and drop energy bombs, and the Grapple Beam, which latches onto special hooks." -  Done
• Ambiguous sentence: "Prime was considered different from previous Metroid games by making extensive use of storyline." Making use was how it was considered? Stubby para. -  Done Tony (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are a few places that need grammar work, and there are a lot of places that are vague, and some of the writing is wimpy:

• "It is the first Metroid game to address the absence of the previous game's power-ups. Samus starts with them, but they are all lost during an explosion in the Space Pirate's ship.[8]" The absence of the previous game's power-ups? Confusing. The second sentence is ungainly. --  Done but make a suggestion if the change isn't enough
• "searches for enemy weaknesses and starts some mechanisms." Some mechanisms? vague -  Done
• "Some sources...set the game as happening after Super Metroid." Set the game as happening? Awkward and reword "some sources" (just say the name of the source, don't be weasely.) -  Done
• "Allegedly," Even if it is cited, the sentence is weak. -  Done
• Nintendo Power gives the game a perfect score? This strikes me as biased, since the magazine and game are produced by the same company, no?
• "(see speedrun for more information)" Make these stage directions exit stage left. -  Done
• "Prime was followed by three games in the same first-person style" Passive voice here leads to a pretty wishy-washy statement. The game was followed by three others in the same style? Better to put the manufacturer/developer as the subject of the sentence, and don't be vague. I assume the games did not just 'follow', there must have been some development. Make the first sentence in every paragraph strong to draw readers in! -  Done
• "The second sequel is Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, released on August 27, 2007 for Nintendo's Wii. Corruption was revealed to close the Prime series,[51] and introduces new hunters and characters." Simply telling us there was a sequel is not good enough. "introduces new hunters and characters" vague -  Done
• "usage of sound effects" seems awkward. -  Done
• "a cold, mountainous location divided into an ancient Chozo ruin, some Space Pirate research labs..." some space pirate research labs? Too informal -  Done

Remember that just because the grammar gets fixed doesn't mean that the prose is engaging. I feel that the prose is pretty good, and a few fixes I mentioned above can make it better. But I didn't feel drawn into the article, most of the prose is pretty bland. The second major issue is the coverage. There are a lot of places that need expansion, for example in the legacy section. This section should elaborate more on why the game has such a legacy, and how the game features influenced later features. Make the connection more strongly, and elaborate. The description so far seems minimal. This is just a sample of the many issues, it will probably take some work to develop the article further. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added games compared to Metroid Prime in legacy. Warn me of more prose issues. igordebraga ≠ 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making those changes. It's good to see editors working hard to polish the prose. The examples I pointed out are simply that-examples. There are a lot of other spots that need work, and I don't feel it is necessary to point out each and every one. However, one major area that needs improvement is the the lead sentences. You marked my comment as "done" but clearly these sentences need work. The passive voice is a pretty weak writing style, though sometimes it's ok to use it. But a great many of the paragraphs in this article start off with the weak passive voice, such as:

• "Three versions of Prime were released..."
• "During the European translation, some of the logs were removed ..."
• "Prime was considered different from previous Metroid games for its extensive use of storyline..."
• "Prime was met with positive reception..."
• "Prime was also included in several lists..."
• "Three other Metroid games in the same first-person style were released after Prime..."
• "Some later first-person shooters were also compared..."

The passive voice is generally weak, because it de-emphasizes or eliminates the subject of the sentence, which is just the kind of thing article readers want to know about. The sentence below, however, is in the active voice, which means that it is much more engaging (though it still needs some work).

• "Throughout the game, Samus must find and collect many different items, ranging from weapons, to upgrades of her Power Suit and items that grant additional abilities."

Thanks for working hard on my suggestions, and I think with some thorough rewriting it can turn out to be a great article. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Done" was for that specific phrase. But  Done with all those passive voice examples you added, tweaked the active voice example; anything else, well, I'll try to improve. igordebraga ≠ 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see why the Japanese transliteration of the title is necessary in the opening paragraph. As the game is of American origin and released first in America, the fact that it was published by a Japanese company doesn't seem to qualify the article as being about a Japanese topic. Add to that the fact that foreign terms are discouraged in Wikipedia and I think the transliteration needs to go before this can reach FA status. - Chardish 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.